In jazz, the double bass and drums do not merely accompany the soloist. They listen, respond and shape the music. This is interplay: the way individual skills connect and become a shared capability.
A customer reports a problem. Sales takes the request, operations checks what is possible, and finance reviews timings and costs. Everyone contributes their expertise. Yet the response is late, some information is lost at the hand-offs and, when something goes wrong, the problem bounces from one function to another.
It does not necessarily mean that people lack professionalism or goodwill. What may be missing is the connection between their contributions. People are working towards the same goal, but each continues to play their own part without being able to hear how others are interpreting the situation.
In jazz, this connection has a name: interplay. It is neither a successful solo nor a sequence of well-executed contributions. It is the dialogue created as the musicians play: what one person offers is heard by the others, influences what happens and can change the direction of the performance.
It is a useful metaphor for organisations too. For a group to become capable of thinking and acting together, it is not enough to bring skills into the same room. Contributions need to meet and influence one another.
Listening to what is happening, not just waiting for your turn
A jazz musician listens not only to know when to come in. They follow the others’ variations: a different accent, a shift in intensity, a pause. These signals might suggest a response, open up a possibility or call for a change of direction.
In teams, however, people often listen while already preparing their reply. One person raises an issue and the listener already has a solution in mind. A colleague shares information that challenges the original assumption, but the conversation continues as if nothing has been said. The words have been heard, yet they have little effect on the group’s shared reasoning.
Active listening does not mean always agreeing. It means allowing what someone says to change your understanding. Before suggesting a solution, for example, you could ask: ‘What is this information telling us about the problem?’ or ‘Which part of the situation are we not taking into account?’
It is a small shift, but it changes the starting point: the discussion is no longer just a series of statements; it becomes a process of working with what the group is discovering.
Responding as the situation changes
In interplay, the response happens in real time. A musician notices a change and reacts: picks up a rhythm, makes space, adds an accent. They do not follow a rigid script, but nor do they act at random. They move within a shared structure and use their skill to adapt to what is happening.
In an organisation, information often travels through predefined steps: a meeting, an email, an approval, another meeting. Structure is necessary, but it can become a problem if it prevents course correction when new information emerges. Sometimes the group realises the situation has changed but continues with the original plan because no one knows who can revisit it.
Responding in real time does not mean making impulsive decisions or abandoning procedures. It means enabling a responsible response when the context changes: sharing information promptly with those who need it, checking its impact on others and working out whether the decision still holds.
The useful question becomes: ‘What has changed since we made the decision? And who needs to know so they can act?’
Moving beyond the solo: even those who ‘accompany’ shape the outcome
In music, the bass and drums can seem like accompaniment. But they are not a passive foundation. Their rhythm supports the soloist, influences their interpretation and can take the whole group in a different direction. Musical dialogue does not belong to the person taking the solo: every voice shapes the whole.
In working groups, too, some skills risk remaining in the background. People closest to the customer or operational processes may know crucial details, but are involved only after the direction has been set. Or the person coordinating speaks first and the rest of the team simply agrees, without adding what they see from their own role.
Moving beyond the solo does not mean everyone has to deal with everything or that every decision must be unanimous. It means recognising that one person’s contribution can change other people’s work and should therefore be brought in at the right time. A leader can open a discussion with a question instead of immediately giving their answer. Someone in an operational role can surface a constraint before it becomes a mistake.
The person supporting the process can help hold together perspectives that would otherwise remain partial.
Putting the quality of the shared result before individual performance
In jazz, technical skill matters. But if every musician is focused only on showing what they can do, the result can become a succession of solos without dialogue. Sometimes the best contribution is to step back, support someone else’s idea or leave a pause so a different voice can be heard.
At work, too, individual expertise can become a performance: defending one’s solution, proving oneself right, protecting the boundaries of one’s function. These behaviours are understandable, especially when objectives, responsibilities or success criteria are unclear. But the group ends up spending its energy on the positions people take instead of understanding the problem.
Putting the ego second does not mean dismissing achievement or giving up on your ideas. It means asking what the shared result needs, even when the answer differs from your initial proposal. Disagreement can be useful if it helps identify a risk, clarify a criterion or find a better solution. It becomes an obstacle when its only purpose is to establish who is right.
How can a team develop interplay?
It is not enough to ask people to listen more. Start with a specific example: a decision that was reopened, a difficult hand-off or a recurring problem. Reconstructing what happened together makes it possible to examine the process, not just the result: What information was shared? Who was involved? Which contributions changed the discussion? What was left out?
From there, the team can try different ways of working: gather perspectives before assessing solutions; ask what might contradict the original assumption; clarify who decides and which skills need to contribute; and check at the end of a meeting what has been decided, by whom and with which responsibilities.
A facilitated programme can make these dynamics visible and help the group test new agreements against real situations. It is not about imposing one technique on everyone, but about understanding what conditions enable this team to connect its skills and turn them into coordinated action.
When that happens, decisions can include information that was previously overlooked, people understand more clearly how their work affects others, and coordination no longer depends solely on a manager’s constant intervention. The group does not eliminate differences; it learns to use them to see the situation more clearly.
Conclusion
In jazz, interplay is not simply a group of musicians playing well. It is what happens when each person listens, responds, supports or takes the lead at the right moment. Teams can ask themselves a similar question: are our skills simply working side by side, or are they changing what we can do together?
Sources
- Simona Grande and Francesca Ricciardi, ‘Hackathons as Jam Sessions for the Jazzer Organization: Insights on the Interplay between Leadership and Followership’, 2022, University of Turin – IRIS.
- Frank J. Barrett, Disordine armonico. Leadership e jazz, Egea, 2017.
- UNI, ‘Con il jazz si impara a lavorare in gruppo con ritmo’, uni.com.
- Silvio Capretti, ‘Jazz facile: l’arte dell’interplay alla chitarra’, Lezioni-Chitarra.it.